![[F]](../_images/site.gif) New York Times on the Web Forums  Science
Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's
war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars"
defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make
the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an
application of science be successful? Is a militarized space
inevitable, necessary or impossible?
Read Debates, a
new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every
Thursday.
 
  (11720 previous messages)
rshow55
- 11:48am Feb 22, 2002 EST (#11721
of 11726) 
Almarst , your next two questions are important and
difficult. Answers to them hinge on your first question, and I want
to add short comments here:.
"2. If not for the World domination, what for the US needs its
unprecedented and still expanding military power, almost all
offensive by its composition and posture? Can it be explained by the
needs for the legitimate defence?"
I'd ask - Can this size of military be explained
at all, in current circumstances, to Americans who are paying
attention, or to people of other nations? It hasn't been so
explained. We'd be safer, and could face our problems more easily,
if these issues were clear.
"3. If the military force in the order of magnitudes greater
then that of any other nation and greater the a dosen next greatest
military powers combined - the unprecedented probably since Roman
Empire situation - is not sufficient to defend this country, is it a
hoax or a honest attempt to provide 100% involnurability?"
There's no such thing as 100% invulnerability for
the people of any nation state. When you ask if our military
posture is "hoax, or honest attempt to provide 100%
invulnerability" -- remember that the US is a large and
many-headed nation and interlocking systems of organizations and
connections. It is some of each.
We are dealing with a situation here is that is unstable.
It can easily be perturbed, and changed, by asking for the truth
about details. The situation, I believe, is such a mess that the
adjustments likely to flow from questions are desireable.
lchic
- 01:27pm Feb 22, 2002 EST (#11722
of 11726)
rshow55
- 01:59pm Feb 22, 2002 EST (#11723
of 11726)
Things can be hard to plan . . . but they are even worse
when they are NOT planned. The end of the Cold War wasn't planned,
or anticipated at just the time it happened, in the ways that
happened. There were no reasonably prepared plans for peace -- there
had been little thought about transitions to peace. Bill Casey was
terribly worried about it, and insisted that I worry about it.
World War II was a very different situation -- from mid 1944, the
US had big, well organized teams working out how to adjust from
wartime to peacetime.
MD11581rshow55
2/16/02 1:51pm
MD7381-7382 rshowalter
7/24/01 12:34pm
" When the Soviet Union fell, and everyone, on
all sides, had so much hope, we didn't have an end game -- and the
United States was so tied up with lies, that it could not sort out
problems before it -- or help the Russians sort out their
problems."
We should work to fix things now -- not go on making them worse.
Our concerns about terrorism make these points more important,
rather than less. If we discussed things, and thought things
through, a lot of muddles could be cleared up, to the advantage of
almost everybody concerned.
MD6057-59 rshowalter
6/26/01 6:22am . . MD6397-9401 rshowalter
7/2/01 7:00am
MD6613 rshowalter
7/4/01 10:46pm
MD6614 rshowalter
7/4/01 10:48pm
MD6551 rshowalter
7/4/01 12:41pm
rshow55
- 02:22pm Feb 22, 2002 EST (#11724
of 11726)
And so patterns that had come to exist were continued - - and
justified in any way that the "establishments involved" could find.
And some of the "establishment" involved had well earned and
impressive credentials - for instance the credentials and
connectionse of the people on the CSIS Board, Counselors, and
Advisers http://www.csis.org/about/index.htm
.
Things kept on going - under circumstances very different from
the ones that had justified them in the first place.
And this happened in a situation where neither the President nor
the Congress had effective oversight on the most important
things the military was doing and saying.
See ARMED TO EXCESS by Bob Kerrey http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/02/opinion/02KERR.html
to get a sense of the degree that the House and Senate had been
"taken out of the loop." They are still "out of the loop" in key
ways.
Programs grew subject to the institutional imperatives behind
them, with much of the "justifying discourse" of a standard that, in
my opinion, would have done little credit to Enron.
Controls are needed on all necessary social functions, including
the military function. Our controls on military function have been
defective, because too much power has been given to a "hidden
government." The rationales used to justify military programs and
forces have distorted our foreign policy and domestic politics.
Good adjustments would be likely if influential people asked
questions that required real answers.
That isn't impossible. There have been some answers supplied on
this thread. Just because it was possible that some NYT people might
be paying attention.
I believe that, if the matter were checked, some changes in
missile defense program arrangements could be traced to this thread.
Of course, that's just a guess.
lchic
- 02:29pm Feb 22, 2002 EST (#11725
of 11726)
Stumbling
Not Falling
the USA
Not YET!
Great Nations
Have to be
Well run
or they fall
on
the sword of
their own
stupidity!
 (1
following message)
   
New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Missile Defense
| 
